Zoning Board of Appeals

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES (FINAL) MONDAY, MARCH 10, 2014 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL ROOM CALL TO ORDER: Bill Moore, Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:03 P. M. SALUTE TO THE FLAG PRESENT: Bill Moore, Chairman; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman; Adam McNeill, Secretary; Gary Hasbrouck; Skip Carlson; Oksana Ludd; James Helicke STAFF: Susan Barden, Senior Planner, City of Saratoga Springs Tony Izzo, Assistant City Attorney ANNOUNCEMENT OF RECORDING OF PROCEEDING: The proceedings of this meeting are being recorded for the benefit of the secretary. Because the minutes are not a verbatim record of the proceedings, the minutes are not a word-for-word transcript of the recording. ANNOUNCEMENT OF ADJOURNED APPLICATIONS: 12. #2708 CELLCO/VERIZON WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY, 2202 Route 50 South, use and area variance for a new telecommunications facility including a 110' high stealth tower; seeking relief for the use and from minimum setback to the tower in a Highway General Business District. Adjourned to March 24, 2014. 13. #2749 569 NORTH BROADWAY, LLC EXPANSION, 569 North Broadway, use and area variance for expansion of an existing medical office use; seeking relief to convert a portion of the second floor space from residential to medical office and from the minimum parking requirement in the Urban Residential-4 District. Adjourned to March 24, 2014. 14. #2747 CONGREGATION & YESHIVA PARDES DORMITORY, 1 Veterans Way, area variance for expansion of the existing school including construction of an approximate 10,000 square foot residential building; seeking relief from the maximum principal building coverage in the UR-1 district. Adjourned to March 24, 2014. OLD BUSINESS: 1. #2750 SARATOGA ACQUISITION, LLC SINGLE-FAMILY, 20 Fifth Avenue, area variance for installation of a pool and front porch addition to an existing single-family residence; seeking relief from the maximum principal and accessory building coverages and minimum side yard setback requirements of the Urban Residential-1 District. This application was heard at the February 24, 2014 meeting. A public hearing was opened and remains open. The application was adjourned to March 10, 2014. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. Applicant: Mark & Sheree Holliday PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Bill Moore, Chairman closed the public hearing at 7:06 P.M. Oksana Ludd presented the following resolution. Appeal #2750 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Saratoga Acquisition, LLC Marc & Sheree Holliday 20 Fifth Avenue Saratoga Springs, NY from the Building Inspector’s determination for the premises at 20 Fifth Avenue, Saratoga Springs, New York, identified as Tax Parcel No.: 165.61-2-28 in the inside district of the City. The Applicant has applied for an area variance for relief from the current City Zoning Ordinance regarding the maximum principal building coverage, maximum accessory building coverage and minimum side yard setback in connection with construction a new front porch to an existing single-family residence and installation of a swimming pool in an Urban Residential-1 zoning district, and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application on February 24, 2014 and March 10, 2014. Action appears to be a Type II action, “Granting of an area variance(s) for a single-family, two-family or three- family residence” and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review per 6 NYCRR Part 617.5 (c)(13). In consideration of the balance between the benefit to the Applicant with the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, the Board makes the following resolution that the requested area variance for the following relief, as described in the submitted application, BE APPROVED: Type of Requirement Required Existing Proposed Total Relief Requested Maximum principal building coverage 20% 29% 31.5% 11.5% (57.5%) Maximum accessory building coverage 8% 5% 10% 2% (25%) Minimum side yard setback 12 feet 6.5 feet 6.5 feet 5.5 feet (46%) 1. The Applicant has demonstrated that this benefit cannot be achieved by other means feasible. There is no additional land available for purchase. Applicant has submitted documentation to show the prior existence of the front porch and of a pool. The existing principal residence is preexisting nonconforming with regards to both the maximum principal building coverage and the minimum side yard setback. The proposed new front porch will not encroach further into the side yard setback than the currently constructed residence. City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, March 10, 2014 - Page 2 of 19 2. The Applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or a detriment to nearby properties. As indicated above, the construction of the front porch will return the front façade of the residence to the condition as originally constructed. Additionally, the installation of a pool in the real yard is being located to maximize the open space available in the rear yard. Additionally, the Applicant is installing a fence to block the view from neighboring properties. The Applicant has indicated that granting these variances will result in coverage ratios and side setbacks that are consistent with other residences in the neighborhood. As such, granting the variance will not have a negative impact on nearby properties. 3. The relief requested may be considered substantial, but is mitigated by the fact that nearby residences have substantially similar maximum principal building coverages and side yard setbacks. As previously mentioned, the side yard setback will not be altered as a result of granting this variance. 4. The Applicant has demonstrated that the variance will not have a significant adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood. Because the lot is a pre-existing nonconforming lot, while the overall variance may appear to have a significant impact on the neighborhood, the increase from the current nonconforming conditions is minimal. Additionally, with the addition of the front porch and the pool, the percentage of permeability will be 54%, which exceeds the required 30% permeability. 5. The alleged difficulty may be considered self-created in that the Applicant desires to re-construct the front porch and re-install an in-ground pool; however, this is not necessarily fatal to the application. Notifications/Approvals/Conditions of Approval: No additional accessory buildings on this site Neighbor Input: Email from Jim Martinez, 15 Fifth Ave. Gary Hasbrouck seconded the motion. Bill Moore, Chairman asked Adam McNeill, Secretary and Skip Carlson if they have reviewed the web cast of the February 24, 2014 meeting and have read the minutes and pertinent information. Both Board members feel comfortable with the application and informed to vote on the application. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary; in favor; Oksana Ludd, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Skip Carlson, in favor; James Helicke, in favor MOTION PASSES: 7-0 2. #2751 JAMES TWO-FAMILY, 24 York Avenue, area variance to maintain an existing two-family residence; seeking relief from the minimum lot area and average lot width requirements of the Urban Residential-3 District. This application was heard at the February 24, 2014 meeting. The public hearing was opened and remains open. The application was adjourned to March 10, 2014. The applicant provided the Board with the tax map which was requested in the previous appearance before the Board. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action, and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. Applicant: Patricia James, owner City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, March 10, 2014 - Page 3 of 19 PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone wished to comment on this application. None heard. Bill Moore, Chairman closed the public hearing at 7:15 P.M. Gary Hasbrouck presented the following resolution. IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Patricia James 24 York Avenue Saratoga Springs, New York 12866 from the Building Inspector’s determination for the same premises, identified as Tax Parcel Section 166.45-4-4, Inside District of the City of Saratoga Springs, New York. WHEREAS, the appellant has applied for AREA VARIANCES for relief from the current City Zoning Ordinance for Minimum lot area, average lot width, and parking requirements for a 2 family residence in an Urban Residential – 3 zoning district in order to maintain an existing 2 family residence; and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on February 24, 2014 and March 10, 2014. WHEREAS, in consideration of the balance between benefit to the applicant with detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, the Board makes the following resolution that the requested AREA VARIANCE for the following relief, or lesser dimensions, be APPROVED: Required: Existing/Proposed: Total relief requested: Minimum lot area (two-family): 8,000 sq. ft. 2,800 sq. ft. 5,200 sq. ft. (65%) Minimum average lot width (two-family): 80 ft. 41.67 ft. 38.33 ft. (48%) Min. parking requirement (two-family): 4 spaces 1 space 3 spaces (75%) 1) The applicant has demonstrated this benefit cannot be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant. The application states, “There are no vacant parcels around the property to acquire to increase the lot size.” The applicant testified that she bought the home as a 2 family but discontinued the use of the 2 family for a number of years due to the increased size of her family. She noted as the kids got older and moved out; she didn’t need the extra space anymore. She testified and presented pictures of the 2nd floor (the second apartment) showing she maintained the kitchen of the 2nd apartment in anticipation of converting back to the original 2 family use of the premises. No physical alterations of the building will occur and separate utilities have been maintained even during the period of single family use. 2) The applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. It should be noted that the 2 family use has been documented in city records in the 1970’s through the early 1990’s on this undersized lot. The UR-3 zone allows 2 family use on larger parcels and the applicant submitted a tax map showing the neighborhood contains many multi-family homes. Again, no physical changes to the building are being proposed by the applicant. 3) The relief requested is substantial. However, this is mitigated by the fact no new construction is planned for the conversion back to the 2 family use. The house is a pre-existing structure with a nonconforming use. City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, March 10, 2014 - Page 4 of 19  4) The applicant has demonstrated this variance will not have an adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood. No additional impermeable area is to be added to the project. On-street parking appears to be available in the neighborhood. 5) The difficulty may be considered self-created. This, however, is not necessarily fatal to the application. Skip Carlson seconded the motion. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary; in favor; Oksana Ludd, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Skip Carlson, in favor; James Helicke, in favor MOTION PASSES: 7-0 3. #2748 422 BROADWAY, LLC, SIGNS, 422 Broadway, area variance to install two wall signs on the side of the building, seeking relief to extend more than 6" from the face of the building in a Transect-6 District. The application was heard at the February 24, 2014 meeting, public hearing was opened and remains open. The application was adjourned to March 10, 2014. The Board requested an advisory opinion from the DRC. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing remains open. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Bill Moore, Chairman closed the public hearing at 7:23 P.M. Adam McNeill, Secretary, stated the Zoning Board of Appeals received a favorable Advisory Opinion from the Design Review Commission. Adam McNeill, Secretary presented the following resolution. #2748 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF 422 Broadway, LLC 422 Broadway Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, March 10, 2014 - Page 5 of 19  From the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 422 Broadway, in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York, being tax parcel 165.59-3-4 in the inside tax district on the assessment map of said City. The appellant having applied for an area variance under the Zoning Ordinance of said City, to install two wall signs on the side of the building; seeking relief to extend more than 6’ from the face of the building in the Transect-6 District and public notice having been given of a hearing on said application on February 24th and March 10th, 2014. In consideration of the balance between the benefit to the applicant with respect to the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, I move that the following variances for the following amounts of relief: Max extension from the face of Required: Proposed: Total relief: the building: 6” 48” to 54” (for bracket) 42” to 48” (700-800%) As per the submitted plans or lesser dimensions, BE APPROVED for the following reasons: 1.) The applicant has demonstrated this benefit cannot be achieved by other means feasible. The applicant considered wall signage for the two tenant spaces; however, “this would not be beneficial to the tenants as [the sign] could not be seen from the main walkway.” 2.) The applicant has demonstrated that this sign will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties as the design of the signs will be “produced to match existing building décor along with existing themes in Saratoga Springs.” The height of the lettering and overall size of the proposed sign are in conformance. 3.) The applicant has demonstrated that the physical and environmental effect on the neighborhood will not be adversely affected by the sign. The sign is proposed to be lit by goose-neck fixtures mounted just above the sign. 4.) The relief may be considered substantial (700-800%); however, due to the unique nature of the pedestrian alley and the ground floor setting off of Broadway mitigates the substantiality of the request. 5.) The difficulty may be considered a self-created. This, however, is not necessarily fatal to the application. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman seconded the motion. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary; in favor; Oksana Ludd, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Skip Carlson, in favor; James Helicke, in favor MOTION PASSES: 7-0 4. #2741 WOODLAWN DEVELOPMENT, LLC MULTI-FAMILY, 100-108 Woodlawn Avenue, area variance for construction of a two family residence, parking structure and parking area associated with the redevelopment of a nonconforming multi-family residential use; seeking relief to allow more than one principal building on a lot, maximum principal building coverage, minimum site to remain permeable, minimum side (two) yard setback to parking area, minimum rear yard setback to two-family residence in the Urban Residential-3 District. City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, March 10, 2014 - Page 6 of 19 This applicant was heard at the January 13, 2014 meeting and the February 24, 2014 meetings. The public hearing was opened on January 13, 2014 and closed on February 24, 2014. The application was adjourned to March 10, 2014. SEQRA: - Action appears to be an Unlisted Action. - Involved agencies include Planning Board (site plan review) and DRC historic review. - An Unlisted Action occurring substantially contiguous to an historic district is elevated to a Type I action. - Type I actions require a Long EAF and Coordinated Review. - A Long Form was submitted. - On January 13, 2014 the Board passed motions to Coordinate Review and defer Lead Agency status to the Planning Board. - The Planning Board issued a Negative SEQR Declaration on February 12, 2014. Applicant: Robert Israel, Owner PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing is closed. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman presented the following resolution. #2741 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Woodlawn Development, LLC 2 Franklin Square Suite E2 Saratoga Springs NY 12866 from the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 100-108 Woodlawn Avenue, in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York being tax parcel number 165.51-2-72.1 in the Inside District, on the Assessment Map of said City. The appellant having applied for an area variance under the Zoning Ordinance of said City to permit the construction of a single-family carriage house, as well as a parking structure and the creation of a parking area associated with the reconstruction of a multi-family residential structure in a UR-3 District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on the 13th of January and 24th of February 2014. In consideration of the balance between benefit to the applicant with detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, I move that the following area variance for the following amount of relief: Required: Existing: Proposed: Total relief requested: Max. one principal building on One building One building Two buildings One additional building any one lot: (100%) Max. principal building 30% 38% 41.8% 11.8% (39.3%) coverage: two buildings combined Min. site to remain permeable: 25% 24% 9.4% 15.6% (62.4%) Min. rear yard setback: to 25 feet 1.5 feet 23.5 feet (94%) carriage house Min. side yard setback: to 5 feet 3 feet 2 feet (40%) parking Min. side yard setback: to 5 feet 0 feet 5 feet (100%) City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, March 10, 2014 - Page 7 of 19 parking As per the submitted plans or lesser dimensions, be approved for the following reasons: 1. The applicant has demonstrated this benefit cannot be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant. The Board notes that this is a project to reconstruct a preexisting nonconforming multifamily structure that was destroyed by fire in 2013. Before the structure was destroyed, it was the site of 15 residential units. As noted by the applicant, after consultation with the Saratoga Springs Department of Public Safety it was concluded that the applicant needed to add two new sets of fire stairs, plus there was a requirement to provide fire separations and egress to the units in the buildings. These requirements, plus the desire to avoid the inclusion of bedrooms without air or light in the rebuilt floor plan, have reduced the interior square footage available for apartments, and when combined with the constraint of keeping the structure within the previous footprint and restoring the exterior architectural features of the building, the applicant is limited in the number of units contained in the structure to 13. The applicant notes that the project is not economically feasible with 13 units, but will be at 14 units, which according to the applicant also is the maximum number of units for which the property size can fit two parking spaces per unit. Previous application materials had requested 15 units but now reflect the 14 units due primarily to parking considerations. 2. The applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. This project restores a previously existing multifamily development, avoiding the loss of a historic edifice in the neighborhood, with one fewer unit than previously when including the carriage house, and with greater parking facilities than previously existed. The Board finds that with the restoration of the façade as it was before the fire, plus the additional parking facilities and the decreased number of units, the impact of this project will not be adverse to neighbors or to neighborhood character. The Board also notes the existence of an easement for cars to enter the parking area of the parcel, across the property of the neighbors on Van Dam Street. The Board also notes neighborhood context; this parcel is located adjacent to a Transect district where much of the relief required in this application would not be necessary. 3. These variances are substantial; however, the Board notes the unique nature of the relief required in the rebuilding of this preexisting nonconforming structure that predates zoning in this City. The loss of that structure and the desire on the part of the applicant to restore a historic building lost due to fire brings about the need for relief. The Board further notes the applicant has planned the number of units at a level constrained by safety ordinances and parking limitations. This has reduced the impact of the substantiality and properly balances the needs of the applicant with that of neighbors and the surrounding community. 4. These variances will not have significant incremental adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood or district. While the permeable surface of 9.4% is less than the 25% required, the Board notes that stormwater management will be addressed during site plan review and will be subject to approval by the City Engineer. This project has been reviewed under SEQRA by the City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board, which has issued a Negative Declaration, determining no potentially large adverse environmental impact from this project. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created insofar as the applicant desires to construct the proposed carriage house and parking area, as part of this project but this is not necessarily fatal to the application. The board notes that the project itself was brought about by the loss of the original pre-existing nonconforming structure. Conditions/Notes: City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, March 10, 2014 - Page 8 of 19 DRC Architectural Review is required. Planning Board Site Plan review required. On February 24, 2014, the Saratoga County Planning Board noted “No Significant County Wide or Inter Community Impact.” Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary; in favor; Oksana Ludd, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Skip Carlson, in favor; James Helicke, in favor MOTION PASSES: 7-0 NEW BUSINESS: 5. #2754 THE FRESH MARKET SIGNS, 52 Marion Avenue, area variance for proposed five wall signs; seeking relief to permit four wall signs on facades without street frontage and to exceed maximum lettering and logo height for three wall signs in the Transect-5 District. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action, and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. PARCEL HISTORY: Architectural Review by the DRC (partial approval- mass and scale only-applicant to return for review of all exterior details and final design) granted June 19, 2013. - Excelsior Avenue mixed use development – Special Use Permit and Site Plan Review approved March 27, 2013. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Wall signs located on an elevation with no streetscape frontage: east (3) and south (1) 0 4 4 (400%) elevations Maximum height logo: sign type "C" – for 2 signs 18" 80" 62" (344%) Maximum height lettering: sign type "A" 18" 29" 11" (61%) NOTIFICATIONS/APPROVAL/CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - Saratoga County Planning Board referral required. - DRC Architectural Review is required. Applicant: Eric Johnson, Fresh Market Representative Agent: Russ Hazen, Ray Sign Company Mr. Hazen provided samples of signage on existing markets which will not be a part of this sign package. The signage City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, March 10, 2014 - Page 9 of 19 Requested is halo lit lettering, back lit and very subtle. Mr. Hazen gave a brief overview of the signage package which he will provide for Fresh Market. Signage is requested on three sides of the building. A discussion ensued among the Board regarding size and type of signage requested. Examples were requested to be provided to the Board prior to the next meeting. The Board also requested other viable options. Bill Moore, Chairman stated he would like to obtain an advisory opinion from the DRC. It was the consensus of the Board to obtain an advisory opinion from the DRC. Bill Moore, Chairman made a motion for an Advisory Opinion from the Design Review Commission. Adam McNeill, Secretary seconded the motion. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary; in favor; Oksana Ludd, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Skip Carlson, in favor; James Helicke, in favor MOTION PASSES: 7-0 Bill Moore, Chairman questioned the possibility of a sign on the building. Bill Moore, Chairman again questioned the applicant as to why other sign packages were not presented to the Board. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 8:27 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Bill Moore, Chairman, stated we will defer to the DRC and then the application will return on our agenda. 6. #2752 SARATOGA PELICAN ASSOCIATES LOBBY, 232 Broadway, area variance for expansion of lobby area to an existing hotel; seeking relief from the build-to, build-out and two-story requirements of the Transect-6 District. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action, and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. PARCEL HISTORY: Area variance for a 2,100 square foot one-story addition to an existing hotel, relief from the minimum two-story requirement approved on November 21, 2011. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: REQUIRED EXISTING PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Build to line: 0-12 feet 62.9' 40.5' 28.65' Minimum built-out 70% 0% 0% 70% Minimum two story Two-story One-story One-story No two-story City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, March 10, 2014 - Page 10 of 19 NOTIFICATIONS/APPROVALS/CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: - Saratoga County Planning Board referral required. - City Planning Board site plan review required. - DRC architectural review required. Applicant: Cindy Hollowood, Holiday Inn Agent: Mike Ingersoll, Matt Brobston, LA Group Ms. Hollowood stated this part of a $3 million project they are undertaking which is part of their re-licensing and ensures their relationship with Intercontinental Hotels until 2024. Mr. Ingersoll provided the Board with a visual presentation of the project which has been approved by Intercontinental. This project will remove the awning area and enclose into a one story lobby. Improvements will give the hotel entrance more presence on Broadway projecting more of an urban feel. The lobby will now become ADA compliant. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 8:38 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Bill Moore, Chairman asked the Board if there were any further questions or comments. None heard. Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing will remain open. Bill Moore, Chairman stated the Board will prepare and present a Resolution at the next Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting on March 24, 2014. 7. #2756 NEILLEY RESIDENCE, 210 Nelson Avenue, area variance for a second-story addition to an existing single-family residence; seeking relief from the minimum side yard setback requirement in the Urban Residential -3 District. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action, and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATION: REQUIRED EXISTING PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Minimum side yard setback 4 feet .5 feet .5 feet 3.5 feet (87.5%) NOTIFICATIONS/APPROVALS/CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL DRC Historic Review required. Applicant: Henry and Donna Neilley City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, March 10, 2014 - Page 11 of 19 Agent: Susan Davis, SD Atelier Architecture Ms. Davis provided the Board with a visual presentation of the project as well as mock up of the project. The applicants are not the current owners. The applicants are requesting a two story addition with a second story master suite on the rear of the home. This is a fairly modest addition. Currently this is basically a one bedroom home. The only variance being requested is side yard setback area variance. Bill Moore, Chairman stated since the applicants are not the owners of the property a letter would be required from the current owners. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 8:58 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there were any further questions or comments from the Board. None heard. Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing will remain open. Bill Moore, Chairman stated a resolution will be prepared and presented at the next Zoning Board of Appeals on March 24, 2014. 8. #2757 PICKETT RESIDENCE, 589 North Broadway, area variance for proposed additions (new mudroom/entry and expanded dining room) to an existing single-family residence; seeking relief from the maximum principal building coverage in the Urban Residential-1 District. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action, and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Maximum principal building coverage 20% 22% 2% (10%) NOTIFICATIONS/APPROVALS/CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: - Historic Review required. Applicant: Dan Pickett Agent: Susan Davis, SD Atelier Architecture Ms. Davis stated this is the first appearance before the Board on this project. This property has been before the Board previously, however the owner has sold the property and Mr. Pickett is the new owner with a new set of needs. He has a larger family and we are designing for the needs of the client. This client has needs for additional bedroom space, a new mudroom and a large dining space. The garage/carriage house structure on the property will be City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, March 10, 2014 - Page 12 of 19 reconstructed at a later time. A visual presentation was provided to the Board. Discussion ensued regarding the amount of lot coverage, and alternative designs. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 9:16 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. Allan Turkheimer, stated he lives directly behind this project. He is not against the project, but he is concerned regarding the height of the carriage house garage. Bill Moore, Chairman stated we are currently not speaking about the proposed renovated garage/carriage house. This project concerns the new mudroom/entry and expanded dining room only. Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing will remain open. Bill Moore, Chairman stated we will prepare and present a resolution to be presented at the next Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting on March 24, 2014. 9. #2755 STANDISH, LLC, 72-74 Weibel Avenue, area variance to construct wall (tenant) signs and an additional freestanding sign; seeking relief for placement of wall signs above the first floor level of the building, to permit signs on a façade without street frontage (south elevation) and from the maximum number of freestanding signs per parcel in the Transect-5 District. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action, and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. PARCEL HISTORY: - DRC Architectural Review approval for freestanding sign "The Springs". - Site Plan Review for mixed use buildings in the T-5 district. - Special Use Permit for mixed use building featuring residential and commercial uses in the T-5 district. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Wall signs shall not extend above the first floor Below second Above first Placement above first floor level of the building floor level floor level level (100%) Wall signs located on an elevation with no street 0 3 3 frontage: (south elevation) Maximum no freestanding signs per parcel 1 2 1 (100%) Agent: Shawn Corp – Balzer Tuck Architecture Mr. Corp stated this project is 7.8 acres. 8 buildings, 128 apartments – 12,000 square feet of commercial space. We are requesting an area variance for three signs. One freestanding project sign identifying sign, identical to that in Phase I, located at the entrance of the drive lane off of Weibel, which will state "The Springs". A Directory Sign, located at the parking lot for the large commercial mixed use building. This will be a directory for the commercial residents in the mixed use building. The second variance we are requesting is Signage above the store fronts below the second floor, again City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, March 10, 2014 - Page 13 of 19 exactly as in Phase I. Very limited area for signage. The final variance is signage for facades which do not have street frontage. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there was any further questions or comments from the Board. None heard. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 9:30 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Bill Moore, Chairman closed the public hearing at 9:31 P.M. Gary Hasbrouck presented the following resolution. IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Standish LLC 18 Division Street Saratoga Springs, New York 12866 from the Building Inspector’s determination for the premises at 72-74 Weibel Ave, identified as Tax Parcel Section 153.00, Block 1, Lots 13 & 14, Outside District of the City of Saratoga Springs, New York. WHEREAS, the appellant has applied for AREA VARIANCES for relief from the current City Zoning Ordinance for installation of commercial wall and freestanding signage, seeking relief for placement above the first floor level of the building and on facades with no street frontage for tenant wall signs and to permit a second freestanding sign in a T-5 zoning district; and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on March 10, 2014. WHEREAS, in consideration of the balance between benefit to the applicant with detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, the Board makes the following resolution that the requested AREA VARIANCES for the following relief or lesser dimensions, as per submitted plans, be APPROVED: Requirement Required Proposed Relief Requested Wall sign placement not to First floor level Above first floor level Placement above first floor level (100%) extend above the first floor level Wall signs located with no 0 3 3 (300%) street frontage Maximum no of freestanding 1 2 1 (100%) signs per parcel 1) The applicant has demonstrated this benefit cannot be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant. This is a continuation of a project by the same developer on a separate parcel in the same proximity as “The Springs”, at 60 Weibel Ave., which was previously reviewed and approved by this Board in October of 2013. Both projects present the same building styles, mixed land uses and signing presentations. The application states, “We explored keeping the top of the sign band below the second floor but that limited the height of any signage to 12”, which we felt was small on a road with a speed limit of 40 mph.” The application also states, City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, March 10, 2014 - Page 14 of 19  “We looked at individual sign panels that would be set off the face of the building but that was too rigid and did not provide flexibility to move signs around as tenants change.” In regards to the wall signs with no street frontage, the application states, “We are seeking to place signage on the North and South facades of the commercial space. This will provide tenants with visibility from the parking lot on the North side and from a future boulevard on the South.” The extra freestanding sign request is consistent with the similar project just South of the current project. The freestanding directory sign will not be visible from Weibel Ave. 2) The applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. The applicant is intent on “continuing the design established in phase-1 of this project at 60 Weibel Ave.” The DRC issued a favorable advisory opinion for the proposed signage and noted “The Commission has reviewed the applicant’s signage request relating to the first of two buildings to front Weibel Ave. The DRC understands that the second building, to be located to the north of this building, is to be a ‘mirror-image’ of the reviewed building. As such, the DRC has no objections to the applicant continuing these sign details on the second building.” The signs proposed are consistent in location and design to those that were previously approved by ZBA and DRC. 3) The relief requested may be considered substantial since 100% relief is requested for each variance. However, the application states, “The tenant signage will only project above the first floor level a few inches and will still be below the second floor windows.” In regards to the South elevation having no street frontage for wall signage, a boulevard is proposed on this side of the building which would provide street frontage in the future. In regards to the extra freestanding sign, the application states, “the freestanding directory sign will be more than 200’ away from the project identification sign, as well as being around a corner.” 4) The applicant has demonstrated this variance will not have an adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood. The Board concludes with DRC that no adverse visual impacts will be created by granting the variance. 5) The difficulty may be considered self-created. This, however, is not necessarily fatal to the application. Note: This variance is conditioned upon Design Review Commission Architectural Review for individual tenant signs. Skip Carlson seconded the motion. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary; in favor; Oksana Ludd, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Skip Carlson, in favor; James Helicke, in favor MOTION PASSES: 7-0 10. #2753 SAKOS/DBA MR. ED'S ICE CREAM STATION, 588 Lake Avenue, area variance to maintain site and building improvements for an existing "lunch room" as constructed in the Rural Residential District. SEQRA: City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, March 10, 2014 - Page 15 of 19 Action appears to be a Type II action and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. PARCEL HISTORY: - Planning Board Site Plan Review of an ice cream stand in a Rural Residential district approved July 30, 2008. - Area variance approval October 22, 2007 for maintenance of an existing freestanding sign; dimensional relief for existing principal and accessory structures, minimum setback to parking and maximum size of sign in a RR-1 district. - Use variance approval September 17, 2007 and modified October 15, 2007 for maintenance of a lunch room, originally approved in 1954. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Minimum front yard setback: 12' 48' (80%) principal building 60' Minimum side yard setback: 30' 9.4' 20.6' (69%) principal building Minimum front yard setback: 30' 3' 27' (90%) accessory building (1st shed) Minimum setback to principal 5' 3' 2' (40%) building: accessory building (1st shed) Minimum side yard setback 30' 16' 14' (47%) accessory building (2nd shed) Minimum rear yard setback to 100' 67' 33' (33%) parking: Minimum front yard setback to 60' 48' 12' (50%) parking: Maximum area freestanding sign: 4 sq. ft. 30 sq. ft. 26 sq. ft. (87%) Use and area variances were granted in 2007 for maintenance of the existing lunch room and site improvements. The area variance approval was conditioned on, "The one, freestanding sign allowed at this location will remain. All other signs, such as ice cream cones, posted on buildings or lampposts must be removed." This condition was not met per 8.5.1, "A variance approval shall expire 18 months following the filing date of such decision if the applicant has not complied with any required conditions and started actual construction, or otherwise implemented this approval". The condition of removal of signs was not met and the approval was not extended per 8.5.2 therefore the approval expired. Site plan review approval was granted in 2008 the same condition was not met as well as the final plans were not filed within 12 months of approval therefore the approval expired. NOTIFICATIONS/APPROVALS/CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - Saratoga County Planning Board referral required. - City Planning Board site plan review required. Applicant: Mr. Edward Sakos, Owner Mr. Sakos is appearing before the Board since final plans were not filed with the City in a timely fashion and the approval expired. Currently the business is up for sale. The current interested buyer was researching City paperwork and found City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, March 10, 2014 - Page 16 of 19 the final paperwork was not submitted. I am trying to get this situation rectified so the sale of the property can go forward. This glitch is not intentional. Discussion ensued regarding the history of this application. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman questioned the usage of small advertising flags planted on the property. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 9:54 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing will remain open. A resolution will be prepared and presented at the next Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting on March 24, 2014. 11. #2661.1 HAYNES RESIDENCE, 152 Grand Avenue, modification of a previously granted area variance to maintain a single-family residence as constructed in the Urban Residential-3 District. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action, and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. PARCEL HISTORY: - Area variance granted June 15, 2012 "from minimum front yard and minimum side yard setbacks for a proposed addition to an existing single family residence" - The applications describes the project as an expansion of the existing second story of the existing nonconforming structure. - The resolution identifies the area variance approved as described in the submitted application and plans. - A building permit was issued, subsequent demolition was more extensive than the variance authorized. Applicant: Jonathan Haynes, Owner Mr. Haynes is requesting a modification to what was initially proposed. No specification as to how much of the building was to remain. I intended for a greater portion of the building to remain. I did encroach on the existing right of way. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 10:01 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Bill Moore, Chairman closed the public hearing at 10:02 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there is a motion for a modification to the original resolution. Gary Hasbrouck presented the following modification resolution. City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, March 10, 2014 - Page 17 of 19  IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Jonathan Haynes 152 Grand Avenue Saratoga Springs, New York 12866 From the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 152 Grand Avenue, in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York being Section 165.66, Block 3, Lot 12, Inside District, on the Assessment Map of said City. WHEREAS, the appellant having applied for an area variance under the Zoning Ordinance of said City for exceeding the permitted activity or use of an accessory structure (a private garage) and relief from minimum front yard and side yard setbacks for a proposed addition to an existing single family residence in an Urban Residential-3 District; and public notice having been given of a hearing on said application held on March 10, 2014. WHEREAS, on June 25, 2012, this Board granted an area variance, “as described in submitted application” and thereby gave dimensional relief from three requirements. The relief granted in that June 25, 2012 area variance resolution is incorporated herein by reference, and; WHEREAS, the applicant has now submitted a revised description of the scope of work in a letter dated February 24, 2014. The revision includes more extensive demolition and rebuilding to original dimensions. The Board has reviewed the present application and has determined that granting it would not substantially affect the grounds for the relief granted in the June 25, 2012 decision specifically in that it would not adversely affect the neighborhood or adjacent properties. The Board therefore grants applicant’s request to substitute the letter dated February 24, 2014 for the description in the original application, and to hereby amend accordingly the June 25, 2012 decision. Seconded by Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary; in favor; Oksana Ludd, abstained; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Skip Carlson, in favor; James Helicke, abstained MOTION PASSES: 5-0-2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman made a motion to accept the February 24, 2014 minutes of the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting with minor corrections as submitted. Oksana Ludd seconded the motion. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, abstained; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary, abstained; Oksana Ludd, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Skip Carlson, abstained James Helicke, in favor MOTION PASSES: 5-0-2 MOTION TO ADJOURN: There being no further business to discuss Bill Moore, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 10:10 P.M. City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, March 10, 2014 - Page 18 of 19  Respectfully submitted, Diane M. Buzanowski Recording Secretary Approved: March 24, 2014 City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, March 10, 2014 - Page 19 of 19